.

The California Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on June 17th, 2014 regarding an appeal the dismissed plaintiffs in the Wright et al vs. Bank of Americalawsuit filed nearly a year ago. The dismissed plaintiffs filed the appeal after theHonorable Judge Gail Andler ordered every single plaintiff but the lead plaintiff (John Wright) to be removed from the mass joinder lawsuit and dismissed the “Concealment of Fraud” cause of action. An anonymous courtroom observer said the Brookstone Law attorney gave an impressive presentation but said the Court of Appeals gave no indication whether or not the Court of Appeals agreed or disagreed with the oral arguments. Please be advised the Court of Appeals has 60-90 days from the day of oral arguments on June 17th, 2014 to respond. Piggybankblog will post the decision the second we hear anything but there is no further information at this time.

All Rise! .The Honorable Judge Wright has left The Court of Public Opinion!

Your donation makes a difference in my life.

.

.

.

Appeals Court Schedule Date For Oral Arguments

May 30th, 2014

Written by John Wright

The “Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit” was officially filed at the Orange County Superior Court by Brookstone Law, PCon February 9th, 2011.The complaint filed on February 9th, 2011 was filed for “Intentional Misrepresentation” and “Negligent Misrepresentation” and “Injunctive Relief for Violation of Civil Code” and “Unfair Competition” with the demand for a “Jury Trial”. The lawsuit was filed as a “Mass Joinder Lawsuit” based on a Code of Civil Procedure (Code 378). This code allows “multiple plaintiffs” to join into a lawsuit in which the injury arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences where there is a common question of law or fact. Once translated it basically means the “multiple plaintiffs with the same “causes of action” can join the lawsuit. — More case points.

.

However – unfortunately – the Honorable Judge Andler agreed with a motion that the Bank of America attorney — Stuart Price — filed on October 5th, 2012 attacking the overall concept used in adding “multiple plaintiffs” into a Mass Joinder Lawsuit. This ruling resulted in the Honorable Judge Gail Andler removing all the plaintiffs but the “lead plaintiff” (John Wright) from the Mass Joinder Lawsuit and essentially turned the “Wright et al vs. Bank of America Lawsuit” into the “Wright vs. Bank of America Lawsuit” in October of 2012. The Honorable Judge Gail Andler’s decision caused Brookstone Law and the “removed plaintiffs” to appeal the decision along with “yours truly” requesting and being granted a “motion to stay” concerning the “personal lawsuit” pending the Appeals Court decision. Consequently there have been no updates in regards to the “Wright et al vs. Bank of America” or “Wright vs. Bank of America” lawsuit since October of 2012. That’s until now.

Therefore — Ladies and Gentlemen of the Court of Public Opinion – it gives me pleasure to announce that the Court of Appeals has officially scheduled the first oral arguments to begin on June 17th, 2014. Therefore please be advised that all “APPEALING PLAINTIFFS” and “HOMEOWNERS AROUND THE NATION” are hereby cordially invited to attend the “oral arguments” at 4th District Division 3, 601 West Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana, California on June 17th, 2014.

.

Homeowner law firms and homeowner attorneys across the nation are now watching the “Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit”very closely because history is about to be made in the Court of Appeals on June 17th, 2014 concerning how all mass joinder lawsuits will proceed in the future. Therefore — with that being understood — I am encouraging any Homeowner Attorney interested in making history to become part of the legal team representing the “plaintiffs” in the “Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit” to please contact me at Piggybankblog@earthlink.net

Therefore — Ladies and Gentlemen of The Court of Public Opinion — it gives the “lead plaintiff” in the “Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit”pleasure to announce that a “secret source” has leaked to Piggybankblog documented proof that Attorney Thomas Girardi has indeed been involved in very serious negotiations with the CEO (Vito Torchia) at Brookstone Law.I am sure most of you here already know who Super Attorney Thomas Girardi is – however – for those of you who do not – Thomas Girardi is the famous attorney who won a $333 million settlement for 650 residents of Hinkley, California in the toxic tort case made famous by the film “Erin Brockovich”.It also might be important to mention that Erin Brockovich currently works at Girardi & Keese.

“The attorney, Thomas V. Girardi, said the settlement benefits severely impaired former players but leaves many others with barely “a handshake.” He said he was trying to determine which players to “opt out” of the deal and continue litigation against the league.” — Source

However the documented proof was unclear as to whether or not Super Attorney Thomas Girardi will be appearing with other attorneys on June 17th, 2014 at the Court of Appeals. No worries though. I have personally agreed to represent everyone instead of using an actual attorney should Mr. Girardi not show up. I’m kidding.

Therefore please allow me to take this opportunity to personally thankAttorney Kenin Spivak on behalf of “plaintiffs” and “homeowners across the nation” for never abandoning us in the “Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit”. That is because it has been both an honor and a privilege – Sir – to have an attorney of your caliber make the unselfish choice to represent the “little guy” against one of the largest financial institutions in the world. The homeowners always knew we could count on you to never abandon us such as Attorney Mitchell Jay Steinhad done with the homeownersmany years ago. Thank you.

All Rise! .The Honorable Judge Wright has left The Court of Public Opinion!

Your donation makes a difference in my life.

.

.

.

.

John Wright Makes Decision Whether or Not To Dismiss His Lawsuit

January 14th, 2014

Written by John Wright

Brookstone Law contacted me shortly after the blog was posted on January 10th, 2014. They explained to me they were in the middle of a move. They said they were sorry for not informing me about Attorney Deron Colby’s departure. They promised it would never happen again. I have accepted their apology.

Therefore – Ladies and Gentlemen of the Court of Public Opinion – I have decided not to dismiss my lawsuit.

All Rise! .The Honorable Judge Wright has left The Court of Public Opinion!

.

Your donation makes a difference in my life.

….

.

.

Wright Announces He Might Dismiss His Lawsuit With Brookstone Law

January 11th, 2014

Written by John Wright

There is a major development concerning the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit. Attorney Deron Colby — who was the attorney on the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit — is no longer employed with Brookstone Law. I looked up his name on the Brookstone law site yesterday afternoon. That is how I found out. His name came back in Google as working for “Janus Capital Law Group” based in Irvine, California.

I might be making the choice to dismiss my personal lawsuit within the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit.Wow! Look at those Bank of America pads and pencils come flying out! The reason is because nobody contacted me from Brookstone Law to tell me that Attorney Deron Colby was no longer my attorney. There seems to be a breakdown of communication between me and Brookstone law. That is why I am considering dismissing my personal portion of the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit based on this lack of communication. I am the main plaintiff in a mass joinder that bares my name. There is absolutely no excuse for why I was not informed. They should know better – but – if they did not – I guess they do now. My possible decision to dismiss my personal lawsuit within the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit will not impact anyone else who was in the lawsuit. It will be only my claims that might be dismissed. Something don’t smell right. I will keep you posted.

.

Brookstone Law not contacting me about Attorney Deron Colby’s departure is not the only reason I might be dismissing my lawsuit. I had mentioned before this might be a personal strategy I might use in the future. There are actually several strategic reasons why I might make this kind of decision. I will share with you one reason. One reason is because I heard from a prominent homeowner attorney that a bank attorney receives “points” on certain types of “wins” or “settlements” or “dismissals”. It was said that the bank attorney receives “more points” for one thing and “less points” for another thing. This of course can cause a bank attorney to work in their own best interest instead of the interest of their client. It might be the very reason many people think these bank attorneys are the ones responsible for running a muck with a lot of these lawsuits. They might be doing it for their own best interest. I will give you an example. The dismissal might simply be worth more points than a settlement for a bank attorney. The bank attorney might suggest the bank allow him/her the process of a dismissal instead of a settlement because of the points. This is even though it might actually be in the banks best interest for their client to settle. I will use my case an example.

I have already announced that I would file FOUR MORE LAWSUITS with FOUR MORE LAW FIRMS with DIFFERENT CAUSES OF ACTION in the event that I should lose or have my lawsuit dismissed with Brookstone Law Group. The Bank of America attorney – Stuart Price – stands to win “points” and “future litigation money” in the event I file FOUR MORE LAWSUITS at FOUR MORE LAW FIRMS with DIFFERENT CAUSES OF ACTION. BofA stands to win a dismissal. I call it “winning the battle but losing the war”because they have FOUR MORE LAWSUITS FOR THE STUART PRICE OF ONE. The bank attorney might simply be advising his client not to entertain a settlement because he wants the “points” for having the lawsuit dismissed. This is even though the Bank of America attorney might have a legal obligation to think of his clients best interest instead of his own best interest. The Bank of America Attorney – Stuart Price – might not find the “lose is to win” strategy as appealing as the strategy that says — ‘Who gives a shit about my client. I want my points’ strategy. Now you can see why some experts might say the Bank of America Attorney should not be playing the “Price is Wright” game — but — should be playing “let’s make a deal” in the best interest of his client instead. This should be no big deal for Attorney Stuart Price. I don’t know what he is worried about. He can still be a winner in playing the “let’s make a deal” game with his precious self-serving “points” he might be worried about. He can still win some points my way.

.

Stuart should already know I am never going to allow him to have the other points. I don’t know what he is thinking. It’s not my first rodeo. That is why I think Stuart Price might be making the mistake of applying the blueprint used for the average homeowner. That is because – I don’t know if anyone has noticed – but – I am not your average homeowner.

I AM JOHN WRIGHT AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

Oh well — Stuart — you know what they say. “You can’t always get what you want.” I know — I know — Stuart. It could have been totally different had someone just loved me when I was a kid.

All Rise! .The Honorable Judge Wright has left The Court of Public Opinion!

.

Your donation makes a difference in my life.

….

.

.

.A Small Victory! Motion To Stay On Wright Lawsuit Granted!

Update 07/10/13: I have an update for the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit for you. There will be a status conference and hearing next week on the motion to stay the proceeding pending the appeals. The appeals take a while and the record designation is not due until the end of January. The appeals court was leaning towards not allowing the appeal on the fraudulent concealment action to move forward. Then Attorney Deron Colby at Brookstone Law Group was able to sway them. Now both appeals are moving forward. That is it for now kids. I will be sure to keep you posted.

Update 07/14/13: A small victory for Brookstone Law and John Wright today. The Court granted the motion to stay with the personal lawsuit of John Wright until the result of the appeal. This was despite the Bank of America attorney — Stuart Price — constant protesting of the stay.

.

.

My name is John Wright! AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

All Rise! .The Honorable Judge Wright has left The Court of Public Opinion!

.

Your donation makes a difference in my life.

….

.

..

All Plaintiffs Dismissed Out of Wright Lawsuit But John Wright

There is a Code of Civil Procedure (Code 378) that law firms have relied on to file Mass Joinders. This code section allows the joinder of plaintiffs where the injury arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions of occurrences and there are common question of law or fact. Mass Joinder lawsuits are for individual plaintiffs jointly using the same legal arguments and applying them to their unique, individual situation. The value of your mortgage, your specific contract, your bank interactions, and the current disposition of your individual property make you a unique plaintiff with a unique condition, requiring a unique remedy. Therefore, a class action lawsuit is not suitable for such cases. Be aware that while class action lawsuits generally cover everyone affected by a situation — a Mass Joinder lawsuit only covers those who are a party to the lawsuit. If you are not a registered plaintiff, you will not receive the remedy awarded specifically to the plaintiffs.

The famous Ronald et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit was a Mass Joinder lawsuit that had been filed by the notorious Attorney Mitchell J. Stein. It has been reported that the Ronald lawsuit might have been perhaps the first such Mass Joinder case involving widespread and systemic lender fraud involving the banks. It had seen many early successes. That it is why the Ronald lawsuit got the attention of many other firms at the time it was filed. One of those firms was what you have all come to know as Brookstone Law Group. That is why the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit would basically be the lovechild of Mitchell J. Stein and Brookstone Law Group. It was filed in Orange County Superior Court and was filed on February 9th, 2011. (Case no. 30-2011- 0044059 – CU – MT – CXC)

The Bank of America attorney (Stuart Price) attacked the core proposition that these types of Mass Joinders can even be brought on October 5th, 2012. The motion filed basically attacked the overall concept of adding multiple plaintiffs into what has become commonly known to be a “Mass Joinderlawsuit”. The Honorable Judge Gail Andler came back seven days later with saying she would take it under submission. Unfortunately — the new update I have for you — is that after New Years Judge Andler agreed with the Bank of America attorney. This resulted in Judge Andler dismissing all the plaintiffs from the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit. That is with the exception of me. I am the only one still currently in the lawsuit. Brookstone Law Group will be appealing the decision.

Therefore — within the next 60 days -Brookstone Law Group will be filing an appeal on behalf of all those plaintiffs that opt to be in the appeal process. Unfortunately — there will be an additional fee to join the appeal process with Brookstone. This after you consider that the Engagement Agreement that the Brookstone clients signed apparently does not include the appeal process. In fact — the Engagement Agreement apparently specifically spells out that there would be additional fees charged if an appeal is necessary. This is why I am sure that many of you who were in the lawsuit will not be too surprised to hear this.

Now it is important to mention that this does not mean this has to be the end of the road for those who were in the Wright lawsuit. This is because Judge Andler went on the record with clearly spelling out that any dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ claims would be improper and unjustified. This means that the ruling does not diminish the strengths of the underlying claimsll be lost forever. Therefore — from the point the Wright complaint was filed — to the point Judge Andler made her decision on the joinder motion – the statute of limitations stopped running. That is why — since the decision — it is running again. This means the clock is ticking for the time for your claims to be in a different form. That is why those who were in the Wright lawsuit need to make a decsion as soon as possible.

The Wright lawsuit plaintiffs have three basic choices now:

Join the Appeal of the Mass Joinder Decision.

File your own “individual” lawsuit.

Take no action at all.

Please be advised that I am not telling a person what they should do. I am just simply giving the update.

Now some say that Judge Andler is way off base with her decision. This is because she has been over turned by the Appellate Court in the past for making decisions in favor of the banks. The biggest case was the Boschma case that was overturned not too long ago. — Boschma case

.

“Depending on the decision by the Court of Appeals – and given uncertainty expressed by Judge Ander – we may – and I stress may – be able to break this matter into separate mass joinders. Meaning instead of “One” Mass Joinder with 700 + plaintiffs – we may be able to separate it into approximately “Ten” Mass Joinders with 70 plaintiffs in each.” — Vito Torchia (CEO) of Brookstone Law Group.

..

My name John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

All Rise! The Honorable Judge Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!

.

Your donation makes a difference in my life.

….

.

.

.

Brookstone Sends Out Email Update

.

August 30th, 2012

I emailed Brookstone Law Groupthe other dayfor an update on the Wright et al vs. Bank of Destroying My American Dream lawsuit. They have responded.

To All Wright vs. Bank of America Plaintiffs:

As you know, Brookstone Lawfiled the Wright vs. Bank of America Third Amended Complaint on 6/4/2012 in the Orange County Superior Court. Below is the download link to the complete Wright vs. Bank of America Third Amended Complaint that was filed 6/4/12.

The current status on the Wright vs. Bank of America case is we filed the Third Amendment Complaint on 6/4/12. There was a 45-day stay (or hold) on the case which was lifted on 8/22 due to an appeal we filed through the Appellate Court on 6/15/12. The reason for the appeal is during our last Demurrer Hearing (February 2011) the judge dismissed 1 of the 5 causes of action listed on the complaint. It was the Fraudulent Concealment cause of action & even though based on new evidence we appealed the judge’s decision, she didn’t agree with us, so we appealed her decision through the Appellate court. However in the last couple of weeks, we received word back from the court stating they will not to hear the appeal at this time, basically they didn’t decide anything on the appeal, so our rights are preserved, meaning we are able to bring the appeal at a later time if the attorneys decide that is the best course of action. Bank of America will need to file an answer to the Third Amended Complaint we filed and they been given 45 days from 8/22 to respond to the Complaint. We should get a new update around mid-October.

Should you have any further questions, please contact our Client Services Dept.

To search for your name on the complaint, you can do so by pressing Ctrl+F and when the search box pops up type your name and hit enter.

The question in the last update was if the Wright et al vs. Bank of Americalawsuit will be as severely damaged if the very same five causes of action are thrown out that were in Ronald lawsuit. I have been told that the answer is “no”. This is because Wright lawsuit is no longer anything like the Ronald complaint. Brookstone Law basically re-wrote the whole entire thing after the separation with Mitchell J. Stein. However, for the record, the bad news is that on July 23rd, 2012, the Appellate Court denied the certiorari to hear the “Fraudulent Concealment” claim that was thrown out of the Wright lawsuit. This means they don’t want to hear the issue. With that being said, there are no future dates in court yet. The case is still stayed because the stay pending decision of the Appellate Court was minimum of 45 days. So once the stay is lifted, BofA will file another demurrer and off we go on that again. (Shaking my head)

The good news is that the “Intentional Misrepresentation” and “Negligent Misrepresentation” causes of actions were left in the complaint.

.

.

My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

All Rise! The Honorable Judge Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!

FIVE MAJOR CAUSES OF ACTION THROWN OUT OF RONALD LAWSUIT

.

July 20th, 2012

Well the bad news is that this might be the end of the road for the famous Ronald et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit. This is because I have been able to indeed confirm that there has been FIVE MORE MAJOR CAUSES OF ACTION DISMISSED FROM THE RONALD LAWSUIT that was filed by the ever so scandalous Mitchell J. Steinback in 2009.

Now I have to be honest with you here – because I am a little concerned about what kind of affect this recent development with the Ronald lawsuit might have on the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit. This is because, like it or not, it was the Mitchell J. SteinRonald lawsuit that was used as the blueprint for the famousWright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuitthat bears my name on it. What I mean is — was I the only person here that noticed that the “Fraudulent Concealment”cause of action was first thrown out of the Ronald lawsuit – and then be thrown out of the Wright lawsuit a few months later? I don’t think that was a coincidence. That is why you can count on the fact that I will be askingAttorney Deron ColbyfromBrookstone Lawwhat his take is on this recent development with the Ronald lawsuit.

I will let you know the minute I hear anything.

.

My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

All Rise! The Honorable Judge Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!

“Fraudulent Concealment” Cause of Action Is Under Review With Appellate Court.

.

July 10th, 2012

Steve Rhodes from the Get-out-of-Debt-Guycontacted me yesterday with an email from someone who was looking for updates on the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit because they thought I was on vacation still. However, please be advised that such updates are at the top of the blog on every page on the fourth square that says “Update” on it. I always update it with the most recent information that I have received from the attorneys that are working on the lawsuit.

Nevertheless, please be advised that Attorney Deron Colbygot the Bryan Cave attorneys (Bank of America lawyers) to stipulate to stay the action for forty five days while Appeals Court decides whether it will hear the Writ concerning the “Fraudulent Concealment” cause of action that I told you about in the last update that the Honroable Judge Andler threw out. So everything is stayed for at least forty five days. This is completely necessary — because depending on the ruling on the “ fraud” cause of action — the newly amended complaint may need to be amended again – but to add back the recently thrown out “Fraudulent Concealment” cause of action — in which case the next demurrer will also look different. Anyway, we are on hold pending Appellate Court review.

I am sure that some of you remember the picture of the 5, 371 pages of the amended complaint that Brookstone Lawsubmitted to the Court on June 15th, 2012.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

A little bit of a good sign on the Appeal though. This is because the Court asked that Bank of America Attorneys to file a preliminary opposition. This means that the Court is basically asking for a brief recitation of Bank of America’s side so that they can decide whether this is worth a further looksee.

You know me — I would be the first to tell you if I thought something was wrong. So don’t worry. Be Happy. You are in good hands with Brookstone Law. I would not say that if I did not have every reason to believe it. That is because Brookstone Lawseems to be the only consistent firm that I have worked with that has not disappointed me. And you know what I say about that — which is the best predictor of the future is the past. (Wink)

That is about it for now.

.

Song lyrics

Ain’t got no place to lay your head

Somebody came and took your bed

Don’t worry, be happy

The land lord say your rent is late

He may have to litigate

Don’t worry, be happy

Look at me I am happy

.

My name is John Wright AND I AM FIGHTING BACK!

All Rise! The Honorable Judge Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!

Brookstone Law filed Updated Amended Complaint On June 16th, 2011

June 16th, 2012

Brookstone Law filed the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit on February 9th, 2011. Then the Bank of America attorney, Stuart Price, filed a demurrer soon after, which is basically a motion the bank attorney makes to try and have the lawsuit dismissed. Fortunately, Mr. Price was not able to get the whole lawsuit dismissed. However, unfortunately, Mr. Price was successful at being able to get one of what used to be considered one of the main causes of action thrown out by the judge. This cause of action was the “Fraudulent Concealment” cause of action that I spoke about in the last update. Yet this cause of action being thrown out was fairly predictable by the Brookstone team. This is because it was the very same cause of action that was thrown out the Ronald et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit months previous. As previously explained, the Wright lawsuit was virtually identical to the Ronald lawsuit at one time. This is mainly because the Ronald and Wright teams were working together when the Wright lawsuit was first drawn up. Things would only drastically change when there was a falling out between Brookstone Law and one of the main architects of the Ronald lawsuit. This resulted in not only a divorce of sorts between this potentially disgruntled and scandalous attorney and Brookstone Law — but it is also why the Wright lawsuit would metamorphosis into a completely different lawsuit than the Ronald lawsuit. Yet there were and are still parts of the Wright and Ronald lawsuits that are similar when it comes to the causes of action in them from the past. The only difference is that Brookstone has added many more updated and hybrid causes of action over time – which make the Wright and Ronald lawsuit completely different now. This mainly is because there has been so much more evidence and information that has come out about Bank of America and Countrywide, such as in the case of the whistleblower who testified that Countrywide and Landsafe purposely inflated the appraisals of homes. – whistleblower storyIn other words, there seems to be yet another blunt evidence of the “Fraudulent Concealment” now. This is exactly why Attorney Deron Colby made a “Motion for Reconsideration” by the judge for the “Fraudulent Concealment” cause of action being thrown out. Yet even considering — Judge Andlerannounced in May that she would not be reconsidering her decision on the matter – even though she said she was quite sure that Brookstone Law would be appealing her decision. Nonetheless, the Honorable Judge Andler did, however, grant the Brookstone Lawmotion to amend to add Landsafe evidence to the lawsuit. In addition, and much to the Bank of America attorneys objection — the judge also granted the Brookstone Lawrequest to have additional time to amend the Complaint. Why did they need additional time? Why did it take so long for Brookstone Law to complete this process? Well you are about to find out.

Let it never be said that Brookstone Law has not been working hard on the Wright et al vs. BofA lawsuit. This is because, as I am sure you can imagine, there must have been a lot of hours and staff utilized to prepare every last detail that has been spelled out in these 5,371 pages.

This is a perfect example of why I can assure you that joining a mass joinder is the only way to go if you are going to sue what used to be the largest bank in the world. This is only after you consider the amount of money a person would have had to pay to have an individual attorney file 5,371 pages in an individual lawsuit. Even if you are independently wealthy enough to bring an individual lawsuit against a bank – you better make sure that law firm has the staff to take on such a monumental task.

The “Motion for Reconsideration” for the “Fraudulent Concealment” cause of action being thrown out of the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuit by the Honorable Judge Andlerwas heard on May 3rd, 2012. Attorney Deron Colby at Brookstone Law respectfully requested for Judge Andler to please reconsider her decision based on the new information that has come in about the Countrywide Whistleblower concerning the allegation surrounding Countrywide purposely inflating appraisals on homes. Unfortunately, though very cordial, the Honorable Judge Andler refused to reconsider her previous decision. This is why Attorney Deron Colby respectfully requested that Judge Andler please certify the issue for an interdictory appeal. Nevertheless, Judge Andler declined to do so, while saying that she was not inclined to “invite the Appellate Court to overturn her decision.” Just so that you understand — certifying the issue for appeal just makes the process easier — but it does not mean that the Plaintiffs in the Wright et al vs. Bank of America lawsuitcannot appeal the decision. In fact – Judge Andler even stated that she expected Brookstone Law to be at the Appellate Court across the street challenging her decision on the Fraudulent Concealment claim. The good news is that the Honorable Judge Andler GRANTEDTHE MOTION TO AMEND TO ADD LANDSAFE. Now as most of you probably already know – LandSafe was the company that most of the borrowers were forced by Countrywide to use for the appraisal of their home — while at the center of controversy because the Whistleblower said they inflated the values.Then Judge Andler also GRANTED THE REQUEST TO HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT. This was even though the Bryan Cave attorneys (Stuart Price and his associate Nafiz) completely protested against the extension. (Upper left picture is of Judge Gail Andler)

Preliminary Injunction

A preliminary injunction is a court order made in the early stages of a lawsuit which prohibits the parties from doing an act which is in dispute, thereby maintaining the status quo until there is a final judgment after trial. A preliminary injunction is regarded as extraordinary relief. The party against whom it is sought must receive notice and an opportunity to appear at a hearing to argue that the injunction should not be granted. A preliminary injunction should be granted only when the requesting party is highly likely to be successful in a trial on the merits and there is a substantial likelihood of irreparable harm unless the injunction is granted. If a party has shown only a limited probability of success, but has raised substantial and difficult questions worthy of additional inquiry, a court will grant a preliminary injunction only if the harm to him or her outweighs the injury to others if the injunction is denied.

The burden for the moving party (Brookstone Law, in this case) is heavy because it must clearly establish, early on in the case, that there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits despite the defendant’s objections and the fact that the case is young as to the documents discovered and the theories presented. While it is not common to prevail on a preliminary injunction due to this high burden of proof, the judge’s refusal to grant an injunction on our behalf does NOT in any way effect the merits of or likelihood of prevailing on our well-plead causes of action which are: Fraudulent Concealment, Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Unfair Competition, and Wrongful Foreclosure. In fact, the plaintiffs in the Ronald v. Bank of America case attempted a similar motion for a preliminary injunction on December 2, 2009. The result in that motion was much the same as what occurred recently here, in the Wright case, however the plaintiffs in Ronald went on to prevail in later hearings such as opposing future demurrers, motions to dismiss, and motions to remove in federal court. It is common knowledge that the Ronald case is still pending in Los Angeles superior court today.

Demurrer

A Demurrer is a written response to a complaint filed in a lawsuit which, in effect, pleads for dismissal on the point that even if the facts alleged in the complaint were true, there is no legal basis for a lawsuit. The term “demurrer” is indigenous to California State Superior Courts and a few other jurisdictions, such as Virginia. A hearing before a judge will then be held to determine the validity of the demurrer. Some causes of action may be defeated by a demurrer while others may survive. Some demurrers contend that the complaint is unclear or omits an essential element of fact. If the judge finds these errors, he or she will usually sustain the demurrer (state it is valid), but “with leave to amend” in order to allow changes to correct the issues in the pleadings and make the complaint proper in the court’s eyes. An amendment to the complaint can but will not always overcome a demurrer, as in a case filed after the time allowed by law to bring a suit. If after amendment the complaint is still not properly drafted in the court’s eyes, a demurrer will be granted sustained. In rare occasions, a demurrer can be used to attack an answer to a complaint.

There is a hearing scheduled on Thursday, August 4th in which Brookstone will argue in defense of Bank of America’s recently filed Demurrer. While the outcome of this hearing is uncertain, it is possible that one or more of the causes of action plead on the complaint will have the demurrer sustained against it “with leave to amend.” It is important to understand that this does not mean that the cause of action is removed from the complaint; or that the suit itself has been dismissed, it means that the court is giving us the opportunity to revisit the specifics of that cause of action in order to more closely match the pleading requirements set by the court or required by the cause of action itself.

Motions for Demurrer are not at all uncommon. In fact, in almost every civil case against a competent defendant, it is expected. The Wright case is no exception to this rule. In fact the Ronald case faced its own motion for demurrer, which was heard on December 2, 2009. The outcome of that hearing was that several causes of action were sustained “with leave to amend.” In fact, to date, the Ronald case has been amended three times, and is currently on its Third Amended Complaint. It is Brookstone’s belief that the Wright case is likely to follow a similar track to that of the Ronald case. Please continue to visit www.brookstonelaw.com for future case updates as this case continues to progress.

All Rise! The Honorable Judge John Wright has left The Courtroom of Public Opinion!

.Please donate if you like this blog.

.

.

..

..PRIVACY NOTICE: Warning – any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to the United States Federal Government also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/or the comments made about my photos or any other “picture” art posted on my profile.

You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee , agent , student or any personnel under your direction or control.

The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE